DamnYankees:randomizetimer: I don't care, but I do want to point out Grant had a very corrupt administration.

He also did a ton of good. He was a very, very underrated president.

Reconstruction did more damage to the country than good, and he was responsible in large part for those policies (along with Andrew Johnson). Lincoln had, by most accounts, envisioned more of a reconciliation with the South rather than an occupation of it. He's rated right where he needs to be.

Nabb1:Reconstruction did more damage to the country than good, and he was responsible in large part for those policies (along with Andrew Johnson). Lincoln had, by most accounts, envisioned more of a reconciliation with the South rather than an occupation of it. He's rated right where he needs to be.

Yeah, stupid Grant for fighting against the KKK and actually trying to stand up for the rights of black people in the South. What a loser.

They babble on and on about "the one" and unicorns, and whatever other Jib-Jab images distort their political nonsense. But 30 years after he was elected, they still want nothing more than to suck Reagan's cock.

DamnYankees:Nabb1: Reconstruction did more damage to the country than good, and he was responsible in large part for those policies (along with Andrew Johnson). Lincoln had, by most accounts, envisioned more of a reconciliation with the South rather than an occupation of it. He's rated right where he needs to be.

Yeah, stupid Grant for fighting against the KKK and actually trying to stand up for the rights of black people in the South. What a loser.

Wow. You really think I'm standing up for the KKK by that statement? Are you trying to be an idiot, or are you just ignorant of the history of Reconstruction in the South? Let's try this again - what Reconstruction brought, aside from actual military occupation of a number of Southern cities - were a lot of opportunistic Northerners who culled political appointments and abused their powers and engaged in all sorts of corruption. Or we can talk about the refusal of Congress to seat Senators and Representatives elected from Southern states in the years immediately following the war. But, yes, obviously I can see you I am a racist and am sticking up for the KKK by being critical of Reconstruction policies.

Nabb1:Wow. You really think I'm standing up for the KKK by that statement?

No. Of course not. But I think you glossed over the very good things Grant did do by merely saying Lincoln would have done better (which I don't necessarily disagree with).

Nabb1:DamnYankees: Nabb1: Reconstruction did more damage to the country than good, and he was responsible in large part for those policies (along with Andrew Johnson). Lincoln had, by most accounts, envisioned more of a reconciliation with the South rather than an occupation of it. He's rated right where he needs to be.

Yeah, stupid Grant for fighting against the KKK and actually trying to stand up for the rights of black people in the South. What a loser.

Wow. You really think I'm standing up for the KKK by that statement? Are you trying to be an idiot, or are you just ignorant of the history of Reconstruction in the South? Let's try this again - what Reconstruction brought, aside from actual military occupation of a number of Southern cities - were a lot of opportunistic Northerners who culled political appointments and abused their powers and engaged in all sorts of corruption. Or we can talk about the refusal of Congress to seat Senators and Representatives elected from Southern states in the years immediately following the war. But, yes, obviously I can see you I am a racist and am sticking up for the KKK by being critical of Reconstruction policies.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Even if its all true, it has pretty much nothing to do with what I said.

DamnYankees:I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Even if its all true, it has pretty much nothing to do with what I said.

Well, it seemed as though you were implying that Reconstruction was mainly about fighting the KKK in response to my criticism. There was more to it than that (and actually, the KKK was an unfortunate and still regrettable and unjustified reaction to Reconstruction policies and frustrations with carpetbaggers and scalawags, which, when coupled with lingering racial resentment already in place, resulted in the creation of a vigilante organization that still embarrasses nice white folks everywhere to this day).

Nabb1:Well, it seemed as though you were implying that Reconstruction was mainly about fighting the KKK in response to my criticism. There was more to it than that (and actually, the KKK was an unfortunate and still regrettable and unjustified reaction to Reconstruction policies and frustrations with carpetbaggers and scalawags, which, when coupled with lingering racial resentment already in place, resulted in the creation of a vigilante organization that still embarrasses nice white folks everywhere to this day).

Of course there was more to it. But I think Grant has been railroaded in history, with people using his drunkenness and corruption (both obviously huge problems) as an excuse to merely overlook all the good stuff he did. Grant pushed and signed the most important civil rights bill in history in his term, but no one remembers it because the Supreme Court struck it down.

Grant-as-President did great things for black people in the South, and the white people hated him. Well, who has history been more influenced by? I think Grant did some excellent things and deserves to be much more highly regarded, warts and all.

If we're gonna kick someone off a bill, get Jackson off our money and put TR on there.

Nabb1:Birthplace of jazz, delta blues, rock 'n' roll, some of America's most heralded writers, better food, warmer weather, more attractive women per capita than up north... Yeah, there's a lot to be bitter about.

Well fine. New Orleans can stay American. But God help you if Metairie or Kenner somehow try to sneak back in.

vygramul:sweetmelissa31: downstairs:You do realize the North had slaves too?

Not at the time of the Civil War.

The Union had slaves at the time of the Civil War.

This talking point is so ridiculous.

Only one state in the Union had slaves, which was Maryland, a state which was culturally southern and was expected by many (if not most) to secede. The core of the North had all abolished slavery by 1804.

Okay, so apparently Maryland had slaves at the time of the Civil War, and I was wrong about that. My original point was that the culture of freed slaves influences the South, so it's not really relevant.

Why ridiculous? It's a fact. When the Civil War started slavery was still legal and happening in Maryland which was part of the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation did nothing for slaves in Maryland, it was intended as part of ongoing war action and only applicable in states that had seceded, and, as vygramul pointed out, those areas in those states under Union Army control.

If it were not true, if slavery were not practiced in Maryland during the years of the civil war it might be ridiculous to point out it was still legal there. Lincoln, with a proclamation, did not free those slaves. The thirteenth amendment did that.

So, why ridiculous? You just like forgetting the bits of history you don't like? What's up?

You two are missing the point. You can't say the war was about freeing the slaves when the slaves over which the Union had undisputed power were still kept in bondage.

Of course, people also can't argue the South wasn't fighting to keep slaves because the declarations of secession for most of the Southern states were dominated by rhetoric defending the institution.

"The war was fought over slavery," is at best a one-sided fiction that doesn't so much condemn the South as it does attempt to create a mythology of distance between the Union and Southern positions on the subject. In the 1850s, the vast majority of people in the North were merely attempting to prevent slavery's expansion westwards - not eliminate it from the South. Lincoln did not declare in 1860 he was heading down to free the slaves, but to bring states back into line. It's quite ironic to have the two sides adopt each others' position on the reason for the war. Yankees went from saying it was about illegal secession to slavery, and Southerners went from saying it was about slavery to states' rights.

You might want to, you know, read a bit more. Some of the traitor state's declarations of secession specifically cited slavery as the issue, as well as the writings of both Northern and traitor leaderships.

You two are missing the point. You can't say the war was about freeing the slaves when the slaves over which the Union had undisputed power were still kept in bondage.

Of course, people also can't argue the South wasn't fighting to keep slaves because the declarations of secession for most of the Southern states were dominated by rhetoric defending the institution.

"The war was fought over slavery," is at best a one-sided fiction that doesn't so much condemn the South as it does attempt to create a mythology of distance between the Union and Southern positions on the subject. In the 1850s, the vast majority of people in the North were merely attempting to prevent slavery's expansion westwards - not eliminate it from the South. Lincoln did not declare in 1860 he was heading down to free the slaves, but to bring states back into line. It's quite ironic to have the two sides adopt each others' position on the reason for the war. Yankees went from saying it was about illegal secession to slavery, and Southerners went from saying it was about slavery to states' rights.

Here, here.

What amazes me is the idea of solidified North wanting to abolish slavery. Never happened. A lot of business owners were Unionists, they would do anything to keep the southern states in the union, including tolerating slavery. And also of note, a lot of those who wanted to abolish slavery held no love for the blacks they wanted to free. They saw them as savages and sub-humans, not on a par with the civilized white man. And this train of thought wasn't relegated to the lower classes. Men of science and learned college professors of that time held those views.

You might want to, you know, read a bit more. Some of the traitor state's declarations of secession specifically cited slavery as the issue, as well as the writings of both Northern and traitor leaderships.

Um, he actually wrote that in the sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted. Well, not in those exact terms.

You might want to, you know, read a bit more. Some of the traitor state's declarations of secession specifically cited slavery as the issue, as well as the writings of both Northern and traitor leaderships.

It depends on how the person uses that phrase. The war was indeed "fought over slavery" for the points you mentioned. There were other issues that were invovled, but those mostly stemmed from slavery in one way or another.

However, the war was not fought to end slavery. Lincoln himself said that if he could get a way to bring the Union back together even if it meant keeping slavery, he would do it.

You might want to, you know, read a bit more. Some of the traitor state's declarations of secession specifically cited slavery as the issue, as well as the writings of both Northern and traitor leaderships.

You might want to, you know, read a bit more. Some of the traitor state's declarations of secession specifically cited slavery as the issue, as well as the writings of both Northern and traitor leaderships.

Um, he actually wrote that in the sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted. Well, not in those exact terms.

sweetmelissa31:Before congratulating yourselves, who in this thread argued that the only issue the Civil War was fought over was slavery? Who are you arguing with?

Congratulating? Myself? I'm just typing this stuff to show off what I know, I'm not arguing with anyone. However, I will admit, I did know at least one Northern state had slavery during the Civil War, something you were previously unaware of. So at least this presentation of facts is of benefit to someone. You should congratulate yourself for learning new stuff today.

You might want to, you know, read a bit more. Some of the traitor state's declarations of secession specifically cited slavery as the issue, as well as the writings of both Northern and traitor leaderships.

Um, he actually wrote that in the sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted. Well, not in those exact terms.

That's what I get for skimming through threads too quickly.

Bah. I'm guilty of that as well, and given how many people just argue the states' rights angle without even acknowledging that the clear paramount concern of those seceding was slavery, you can't be completely blamed for missing it. I probably shouldn't have snarked at you for it.

vygramul:Bah. I'm guilty of that as well, and given how many people just argue the states' rights angle without even acknowledging that the clear paramount concern of those seceding was slavery, you can't be completely blamed for missing it. I probably shouldn't have snarked at you for it.

You know who else was a proponent of "State's Rights" without clarity of paramount concern?

Nabb1:DamnYankees: If we're gonna kick someone off a bill, get Jackson off our money and put TR on there.

Hey, now. Don't mess with Old Hickory. Dude had a three-thousand pound block of cheddar cheese in the foyer of the White House.

Jackson, opposed to a US central bank, was reelected in 1833 and he pulled the government's funds out of the 2nd Bank of the United State. The Bank President, responded by contracting the money supply to pressure Jackson to renew the bank's charter forcing the country into a recession, which the bank blamed on Jackson's policies. The bank's charter was not renewed in 1836.

Jackson farking hated the bank, bankers, banking, and moneymen. There's no reason why his picture should be on the $20.

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat:Nabb1: DamnYankees: If we're gonna kick someone off a bill, get Jackson off our money and put TR on there.

Hey, now. Don't mess with Old Hickory. Dude had a three-thousand pound block of cheddar cheese in the foyer of the White House.

Jackson, opposed to a US central bank, was reelected in 1833 and he pulled the government's funds out of the 2nd Bank of the United State. The Bank President, responded by contracting the money supply to pressure Jackson to renew the bank's charter forcing the country into a recession, which the bank blamed on Jackson's policies. The bank's charter was not renewed in 1836.

Jackson farking hated the bank, bankers, banking, and moneymen. There's no reason why his picture should be on the $20.

Plus he is generally regarded as an asshole.

Sure, but you are overlooking the big block of cheese. Behold, the power of cheese.